General Matters

When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE PHILIPPINES
(A Comprehensive Discussion)

I. GENERAL RULE

As a matter of public policy and consistent with the principle that crimes affect public interest, Philippine courts do not ordinarily issue injunctions to restrain criminal prosecutions. The rationale is twofold:

  1. Separation of Powers: The power to prosecute criminal offenses is primarily lodged in the Executive Department (through the public prosecutors and the Department of Justice). Courts are generally cautioned against encroaching on prosecutorial discretion.

  2. Public Interest in Prosecution: Criminal proceedings are instituted on behalf of the State, which has a primordial interest in the speedy and just resolution of offenses. Restraining prosecution could disrupt the public’s interest in seeing wrongdoing prosecuted without undue delay.

Hence, the default stance is that courts must refrain from issuing injunctive relief against criminal proceedings unless exceptional and compelling circumstances are shown.

II. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ALLOWED

Despite the general rule, Philippine jurisprudence recognizes limited circumstances where a court may enjoin or restrain a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines that center on exceptional cases. While the precise formulations vary among decisions, they commonly revolve around the following grounds:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction or Patent Nullity of the Proceedings

    • If the court or tribunal initiating or handling the criminal case has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the accused, or if the charge is patently void (e.g., the alleged acts do not constitute a crime at all).
    • In such instances, continuing with the prosecution constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, justifying the extraordinary remedy of Prohibition (and, in some cases, an injunctive writ) to arrest proceedings that are fundamentally without basis.

  2. Violation of Constitutional Rights

    • Where the prosecution is shown to be a means to harass, oppress, or violate the constitutional rights of the accused—such as the right to due process or the right against double jeopardy—an injunction may be issued to prevent irreparable harm.
    • For instance, if it is obvious from the complaint or the information that no probable cause exists or that the accused is being singled out maliciously (i.e., initiated in bad faith or motivated purely by persecution rather than prosecution), courts have intervened to forestall prosecutorial abuse.

  3. Absence of a Prima Facie Case / Absolutely No Offense Charged

    • When it is evident on the face of the information or from the records that the charge fails to allege facts constituting an offense, no valid criminal prosecution can be pursued.
    • Courts in a certiorari or prohibition proceeding (under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) may determine whether the prosecutor or the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. If so, an injunction can be used to halt the unwarranted prosecution.

  4. Existence of a Prejudicial Question

    • A prejudicial question is one that arises in a civil case and must be definitively resolved before the criminal action can proceed. It typically involves an issue determinative of guilt or innocence (e.g., issues of ownership, status, or any civil right that, once decided, will effectively decide the criminal liability).
    • In such a scenario, courts can issue an order suspending or restraining the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the prejudicial question in the civil case.

  5. Other Extraordinary or Compelling Circumstances

    • Philippine courts have, on rare occasions, recognized “extraordinary” or “compelling” circumstances not strictly falling under the first four categories but which nonetheless would result in manifest injustice if the prosecution were allowed to continue unchecked.
    • An example might be where continuing the prosecution would cause irreparable injury to the accused’s constitutional rights or make eventual acquittal practically meaningless (e.g., malicious repeated filing of baseless charges designed purely to harass).

III. LEGAL BASIS & JURISPRUDENTIAL SUPPORT

  1. Rules of Court

    • Rule 58 (Preliminary Injunction), particularly Section 3, lays out the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Generally, it contemplates civil, administrative, or quasi-judicial proceedings. Restraining criminal prosecution via preliminary injunction is unusual but is not foreclosed if the stringent requirements for injunction are established.
    • Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) is often invoked when there is grave abuse of discretion by the public prosecutor or the court. A successful Rule 65 petition can lead to an order effectively stopping (prohibiting) the criminal proceeding. In some instances, the Supreme Court has recognized that an ancillary injunctive relief (TRO or preliminary injunction) may be issued when the main action is one for Prohibition.

  2. Jurisprudence

    • The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the “general rule-exception rule” approach.
    • A leading line of cases (e.g., Almeda v. Court of Appeals, Roberts v. Court of Appeals, among others) reiterates that criminal prosecutions should not be enjoined except under extraordinary circumstances such as where there is a clear case of harassment, or the prosecution is conducted without probable cause and is thus tantamount to persecution.
    • The Court’s pronouncements underscore that merely claiming innocence or raising defenses on the merits does not suffice to invoke the extraordinary remedy of injunction against a criminal prosecution. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a special circumstance (no offense charged, no jurisdiction, double jeopardy, bad faith, etc.).

IV. NATURE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CRIMINAL CASES

  • Provisional Remedy: An injunction is generally a provisional remedy available in civil proceedings to prevent irreparable injury or to maintain the status quo.
  • Rigid Application: In criminal cases, the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction is even more stringent because of the State’s interest in prosecuting crimes.
  • Impact on Due Process: While the accused’s rights are paramount, halting prosecution for reasons short of the recognized exceptions can also infringe upon the interests of the State and the public in effectively addressing criminal acts.

V. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Filing a Petition

    • To restrain an ongoing or impending criminal prosecution, an aggrieved party typically files a special civil action for certiorari and/or prohibition under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor or the judge.
    • As ancillary relief, the petitioner may pray for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to maintain the status quo while the certiorari or prohibition case is being resolved.

  2. Burden of Proof

    • The petitioner must show a clear legal right to be protected (i.e., that continuing the prosecution violates a constitutional right, is without probable cause, or is under a void proceeding).
    • Allegations must be supported by prima facie evidence or clear documentary proof that the criminal case lacks basis, is pursued in bad faith, or is otherwise covered by an established exception.

  3. Effect of Issuance of Injunction

    • If granted, the court’s injunctive order temporarily suspends or completely restrains the criminal prosecution, depending on the terms and scope of the writ.
    • However, this is interlocutory in nature; it does not equate to an acquittal or a dismissal of the criminal case. It merely halts proceedings pending final determination of the validity of the prosecution.

  4. Possibility of Lifting

    • If the higher court or the issuing court subsequently rules that no grave abuse of discretion was committed, or the recognized exceptions do not apply, the injunction can be lifted or dissolved, and the criminal prosecution will resume.

VI. PRACTICAL POINTERS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Avoid Forum-Shopping

    • A defendant or respondent seeking to stop a criminal prosecution must take care to exhaust available remedies and adhere to the rules against forum-shopping. Filing multiple petitions in different courts or tribunals for the same objective may lead to the summary dismissal of all petitions and possible disciplinary sanctions.

  2. Ethical Duty of Counsel

    • Counsel must ensure that a petition to enjoin prosecution is anchored on valid grounds and not merely intended to delay the proceedings. Lawyers have a duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to refrain from filing groundless, sham, or dilatory petitions.

  3. Coordination with Prosecutorial Authorities

    • Before resorting to injunctive remedies, it is often prudent to seek reconsideration or review from higher prosecutorial authorities (e.g., the Office of the City Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor, or the Department of Justice) if the basis for restraining the prosecution is the absence of probable cause or some factual deficiency.

  4. Respecting the Rights of the Accused and the Interests of the State

    • While the accused has every right to protect constitutional guarantees against malicious or unjust prosecutions, courts and litigants must balance such right against the State’s prerogative to punish criminal acts. Lawyers must remember that the prosecutorial arm of the government represents the interests of society at large.

VII. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Baseline Principle: Courts do not lightly interfere with the prosecution of crimes.
  • Narrow Exceptions: Injunctive relief in criminal cases is strictly confined to specific instances—lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, absence of an offense, or other extraordinary circumstances.
  • Legal Remedy via Rule 65: The usual vehicle is a special civil action for certiorari/prohibition, where injunction (or TRO) may be prayed for as ancillary relief.
  • High Threshold: The applicant for injunction must demonstrate clear legal right and grave or irreparable damage if prosecution proceeds.
  • Public Policy: Any attempt to stop a criminal case must be justified by overriding considerations of justice and fair play; mere allegations of innocence or defenses on the merits do not suffice.

Final Word

Injunctions against criminal prosecutions in the Philippines are the exception rather than the rule. The Courts prioritize the unimpeded administration of criminal justice. Nonetheless, where grave abuse of discretion exists—such as patent illegality of the charge, total absence of probable cause, or malicious prosecution—judicial intervention is available to protect constitutional rights and to prevent irreparable harm. Lawyers and litigants must be meticulous in ensuring that their grounds are solidly anchored on law and jurisprudence, balancing individual rights with the broader public interest in the prosecution of crimes.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Jurisdiction over subject matter and jurisdiction over person of the accused | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion on Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter and Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused under Philippine criminal procedure. This overview is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended), the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and pertinent jurisprudence. While this presentation strives to be extensive and meticulous, it is still a general discussion and should not be taken as legal advice for specific cases.

I. GENERAL CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

In Philippine criminal law and procedure, jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of a court to hear and decide a criminal action. It entails two principal aspects in criminal proceedings:

  1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (i.e., over the offense charged)
  2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Without valid jurisdiction over both aspects, a court cannot validly hear and decide a criminal case; any judgment rendered would be void.

II. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

A. Definition

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases is the court’s legal power to try and decide a particular offense or violation of penal law. This is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the Complaint or Information.

B. How Determined

  1. By Law

    • In the Philippines, jurisdiction over criminal cases is conferred exclusively by law and cannot be implied or waived.
    • Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended) and special laws outline which courts have jurisdiction over specific offenses.

  2. By the Allegations in the Complaint or Information

    • The nature of the offense, as stated in the Complaint or Information, determines which court has jurisdiction.
    • Neither the caption nor the designation of the offense alone is conclusive; rather, it is the recital of facts constituting the offense charged.

C. Legal Bases

  1. Constitutional Provision

    • The 1987 Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
    • It also empowers Congress to define the jurisdiction of lower courts.

  2. Statutory Provisions

    • B.P. Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by R.A. No. 7691 and other laws:
      • Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs).
      • Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).
    • Other Special Laws (e.g., R.A. No. 3019 for anti-graft cases, R.A. No. 9165 for dangerous drugs cases) may confer jurisdiction to special courts like the Sandiganbayan or designated Special Drugs Courts.

D. Hierarchy of Courts and Their Criminal Jurisdiction

Below is a general outline of Philippine courts’ jurisdiction over criminal cases (subject to amendments by subsequent special laws):

  1. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)

    • Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine and other accessory penalties.
    • Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
    • Certain cases covered by special laws where the prescribed penalty falls within the same range.

  2. Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

    • Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six (6) years.
    • Special laws often specify RTC jurisdiction for serious offenses (e.g., illegal drugs, money laundering, cybercrime, etc.) unless otherwise specifically conferred upon other courts (like Sandiganbayan).

  3. Sandiganbayan

    • Jurisdiction over criminal (and civil) cases involving graft and corruption and related offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, provided certain salary grade thresholds and other criteria under R.A. No. 10660 and R.A. No. 8249 are met.

  4. Court of Appeals (CA)

    • Primarily an appellate court in criminal cases decided by the RTCs or other courts.
    • Does not generally exercise original jurisdiction over criminal matters, except in certain instances like special civil actions (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) involving criminal cases.

  5. Supreme Court (SC)

    • Final appellate review.
    • Exercises original jurisdiction only in exceptional cases (e.g., petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus).

E. Effect of Amendments to the Complaint or Information on Jurisdiction

  • If an amendment to the Complaint or Information downgrades or changes the offense, it can affect the trial court’s jurisdiction if the original allegations were not correctly framed.
  • However, once jurisdiction has attached based on the original Information alleging a valid offense within the court’s jurisdiction, any subsequent amendment generally does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction, unless the law or clear legal provisions mandate otherwise.

F. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

  • If a court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged (or if the offense belongs to the jurisdiction of another court or tribunal), the accused can file a Motion to Quash the Information under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void and may be assailed at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

III. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

A. Definition

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is the power of the court to subject the accused to its orders and processes. Even if a court has jurisdiction over the offense, it must also acquire jurisdiction over the accused to validly try and decide the case.

B. Modes of Acquiring Jurisdiction over the Accused

  1. Voluntary Appearance or Submission

    • The accused appears in court, files pleadings, or otherwise participates in the proceedings (for example, by posting bail) without questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person.
    • Such appearance or participation is deemed a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction over the person.

  2. Lawful Arrest

    • When the accused is lawfully arrested, either by a warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest under circumstances allowed by law (Rule 113, Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).
    • Once legally arrested, the accused is brought under the control of the court, typically upon filing of the Information and issuance of a commitment order or the setting of bail.

  3. Extradition or Other Legal Compulsion

    • In cases where the accused is extradited from another jurisdiction or otherwise compelled by lawful process, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person once the accused is under Philippine custody and subsequently before the court.

C. Waiver of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Person

  • An accused can waive any defect in the acquisition of jurisdiction over his or her person by failing to promptly raise it.
  • If the accused seeks affirmative relief, such as filing a motion that goes to the merits without challenging jurisdiction, the accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.

D. Instances of Non-Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Accused

  • If the accused challenges the legality of the arrest before entering a plea and continues to object to the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person, the court must resolve that issue first.
  • If the arrest is declared illegal and there is no subsequent valid submission of the accused to the court, jurisdiction over the person is not acquired.
  • However, an illegal arrest does not necessarily divest the court of jurisdiction over the offense, and if the accused voluntarily enters a plea (or otherwise participates in the proceedings) without renewing the objection, the court may be deemed to have properly acquired jurisdiction over the person.

IV. KEY POINTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES

  1. Jurisdiction is Conferred by Law, Not by Consent

    • Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by agreement or waiver. It must be expressly provided by law.
    • (See People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 218949, 2019)

  2. Distinction Between Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter and Person of the Accused

    • Subject matter jurisdiction stems from statute; personal jurisdiction can be waived.
    • (See Borque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-74475, 1987)

  3. Voluntary Appearance is Tantamount to Waiver of Objection Over Personal Jurisdiction

    • By posting bail or participating in trial without objecting, accused is considered to have waived defects in personal jurisdiction.
    • (See People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 125198, 1999)

  4. Jurisdiction Once Acquired Continues Until the Case is Terminated

    • Even if the penalty is subsequently modified or changed by law or by a plea-bargaining agreement, the court that first validly acquired jurisdiction retains it.
    • (See Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 197205, 2015)

  5. Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

    • The proper remedy for lack of jurisdiction is to file a motion to quash before entering a plea.
    • If the motion is granted, the case may be dismissed (without prejudice if the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction over the offense or the person, unless double jeopardy attaches under specific circumstances).

  6. Effects of Illegal Arrest

    • The remedy of the accused is to file a motion to quash or challenge the arrest before arraignment.
    • If the accused fails to object before entering a plea, defects in the arrest are typically deemed waived.
    • (See People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, 2016)

V. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LAWYERS

  1. Examine the Information Thoroughly

    • Ensure the factual allegations justify the offense charged and fall within the correct court’s jurisdiction.
    • If there is a jurisdictional mismatch, file a motion to quash or move for dismissal at the earliest opportunity.

  2. Check the Manner of Arrest

    • If your client was illegally arrested, object to the validity of the arrest prior to entering a plea.
    • Decide carefully whether to post bail or file motions that may constitute voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

  3. Monitor Amendments and Reinvestigations

    • If the prosecution amends the Information in a way that changes the nature of the offense and potentially the court’s jurisdiction, be prepared to raise or renew jurisdictional objections.

  4. In the Sandiganbayan

    • Confirm if the offense truly involves a public officer in relation to his or her office and meets the appropriate salary grade or official classification. Otherwise, the RTC or another court might have jurisdiction instead.

  5. Preserve Objections for Appeal

    • Properly raise and preserve jurisdictional issues at trial.
    • Jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised even for the first time on appeal, but best practice demands raising it at the earliest stage.

VI. CONCLUSION

In Philippine criminal procedure, jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person of the accused are indispensable prerequisites for a court to validly try and decide a criminal case. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined from the allegations in the Complaint or Information, while jurisdiction over the accused is obtained either through lawful arrest or voluntary appearance/submission to the court. A thorough understanding of these concepts—and a keen awareness of the relevant statutes and jurisprudential doctrines—is critical for both the prosecution and the defense to protect their clients’ rights and ensure that criminal proceedings comply with due process.

Disclaimer: The foregoing discussion is a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases or problems, consultation with a qualified attorney is recommended.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Criminal jurisdiction | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Disclaimer: The following discussion is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for guidance on specific factual or legal questions.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

A. General Matters

1. Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of a court to hear, try, and decide criminal cases. In Philippine law, it is substantive (conferred by the Constitution or by statute) and cannot be conferred by consent or waived by the parties. Below is a meticulous, structured overview of the key concepts, legal bases, and jurisprudential rules governing criminal jurisdiction in the Philippines.

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

  1. Jurisdiction is conferred by law

    • In criminal cases, the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute (or the Constitution) in force at the time of the commission of the offense.
    • Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by agreement, nor can they waive a lack of jurisdiction.

  2. Jurisdiction cannot be presumed

    • It must be clearly vested in the court by law.
    • A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void.

  3. Distinguish between “jurisdiction” and “venue”

    • Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.
    • As a rule, criminal actions must be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed (Rule 110, Sec. 15, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure).
    • However, venue can sometimes vary by statute (e.g., special laws on cybercrimes, continuing crimes, etc.).

  4. Once vested, jurisdiction is retained

    • Once jurisdiction attaches to a court, it is retained until the case is finally resolved, even if a subsequent statute alters the jurisdictional rules, subject to certain exceptions (e.g., if a new law provides it shall apply retroactively).

II. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

  1. 1987 Constitution

    • The Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court (SC) and in such lower courts as may be established by law (Art. VIII, Sec. 1).
    • It grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all lower courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 6).

  2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended

    • Organizes the hierarchy and jurisdiction of the lower courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals).
    • Modified by subsequent laws such as Republic Act Nos. 7691, 8369, etc.

  3. Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law)

    • Creates the Sandiganbayan and confers jurisdiction over certain offenses involving public officers.

  4. Other special laws

    • E.g., R.A. 10660 (further strengthening the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan), R.A. 9282 (expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals), and others that may assign exclusive or concurrent criminal jurisdiction to specific courts.

III. CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS AND THEIR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. Supreme Court (SC)

  • The highest court; exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Regional Trial Courts (in limited instances provided by law).
  • Has original jurisdiction in certain cases (e.g., issuance of writs such as the Writ of Amparo, Habeas Data, Prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari), but generally does not conduct trials of criminal cases in the first instance.

B. Court of Appeals (CA)

  • Exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts.
  • May also receive cases via Rule 65 petitions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) involving criminal matters from lower courts or other tribunals.
  • No original jurisdiction to try criminal cases (except where authorized by special law or procedural rules, e.g., petitions for issuance of certain prerogative writs).

C. Sandiganbayan

  • A special appellate collegiate court created under PD 1606, as amended.
  • Exercises original jurisdiction over:
    1. Criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees, where one or more of the accused are occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher, or otherwise falling under its jurisdiction by law.
    2. Cases involving alleged violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379 (Unexplained Wealth), the Revised Penal Code provisions on bribery, and other offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, depending on their salary grade and/or position.
  • Exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of Regional Trial Courts in cases under its exclusive original jurisdiction but cognizable by the RTC due to lower salary grades (per R.A. 10660 and jurisprudential rules).

D. Regional Trial Courts (RTC)

  • Under BP 129 (as amended), the RTCs exercise original jurisdiction in criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.
  • General Rule: RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction for offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, or a fine above a threshold amount, or both. (See R.A. 7691.)
  • RTC also has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, but the criminal side is primarily determined by the penalty or the nature of the offense.
  • Has appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the lower courts (MTC, MeTC, MCTC) within its territorial region.

E. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

  • Collectively referred to as “first-level courts.”
  • Under R.A. 7691 (which expanded first-level courts’ jurisdiction), these courts generally have jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine or other imposable accessory penalties.
  • Specific laws can also assign certain offenses (e.g., violations of municipal ordinances, certain crimes under special laws with specific imposable penalties) to first-level courts.

F. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

  • Has exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over tax-related crimes and offenses under the National Internal Revenue Code, Customs laws, and related statutes, pursuant to R.A. 1125 (as amended by R.A. 9282 and R.A. 9503).
  • Examples: criminal violations of tax laws, smuggling, etc.

G. Shari’a Courts

  • Organized under P.D. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws).
  • Their criminal jurisdiction is limited to offenses defined and punished under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws involving personal or family relations of Muslims, to the extent recognized by law.
  • Generally, Shari’a Courts do not exercise jurisdiction over all criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, unless specifically provided.

IV. DETERMINING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  1. Nature of Offense or Imposable Penalty
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC (unless within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or CTA).
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment of six (6) years or less fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC/MeTC/MCTC/MTCC.
    • Certain laws or rules may specifically place an offense in a particular court’s jurisdiction regardless of penalty (e.g., violation of municipal ordinances, minimal traffic violations, etc.).
  2. Nature of the Accused or Official Position (Sandiganbayan)
    • If the accused is a public officer with Salary Grade 27 or higher (or otherwise falling under the enumerations of PD 1606, as amended), and the offense is connected with the performance of official duties, the Sandiganbayan generally has original jurisdiction.

B. Territorial Jurisdiction (Venue)

  1. General Rule:
    • Criminal actions must be instituted and tried in the territory where the offense was committed. This is mandated by Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
    • The place of commission is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
  2. Exceptions:
    • Continuing or Transitory Offenses: Where the acts material to the crime span different territorial jurisdictions (e.g., estafa committed partly in one city and partly in another, violation of B.P. 22 [Bouncing Checks Law], kidnapping or illegal detention continuing in multiple areas). Venue may be laid in any court where any of the essential ingredients occurred.
    • Cybercrimes: Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175), venue may lie in the place where the data/message was accessed, or where the offended party or the accused resides, or in other places specified by law.
    • Special Laws: Some statutes provide for special rules of venue (e.g., Human Security Act for terrorism offenses, intellectual property laws, etc.).

C. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused

  1. Acquired by Arrest or Voluntary Surrender:
    • The court must also acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused, typically by a valid arrest or the accused’s voluntary appearance or surrender.
  2. Waiver of Objections:
    • If the accused voluntarily enters a plea without questioning the legality of the arrest or the court’s jurisdiction over his person, he is deemed to have waived such objections.

V. EFFECT OF LACK OR LOSS OF JURISDICTION

  1. Null and Void Proceedings
    • When a court lacks jurisdiction over the offense or subject matter, its proceedings and judgment are null and void, and cannot be ratified even by the parties’ participation.
  2. Double Jeopardy Not Attached
    • A conviction or acquittal by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. It does not bar another prosecution for the same offense because double jeopardy does not attach to void proceedings.
  3. Exceptions
    • If the issue of jurisdiction is belatedly raised and the accused actively participated, courts may still dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds once discovered, because jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived.

VI. JURISPRUDENTIAL HIGHLIGHTS

  1. People v. Mariano – Reinforces the rule that jurisdiction over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information and the penalty imposable by law at the time of the offense’s commission.
  2. People v. Sandiganbayan (and subsequent cases) – Clarifies the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over offenses committed by certain public officials in relation to their office.
  3. Copiosa v. Clemente – Illustrates that once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained despite subsequent statutory changes unless expressly provided otherwise by law.

VII. PRACTICAL POINTS AND LEGAL ETHICS

  1. Duty of Lawyers to Ascertain Jurisdiction

    • Upon receiving a case, defense counsel/prosecutor must check if the court indeed has jurisdiction over the offense.
    • A lawyer commits malpractice if they fail to timely raise obvious jurisdictional defects that could invalidate a proceeding.

  2. Timely Objections

    • Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage (even on appeal) because it cannot be waived.
    • Improper venue or lack of jurisdiction over the person, however, must be raised at the earliest opportunity, or it may be waived.

  3. Respect for the Courts

    • Counsel must show deference to the court’s authority while properly invoking defenses or motions to quash the information if the court indeed lacks jurisdiction.

  4. Ethical Obligation to the Client and the Court

    • Lawyers should avoid delaying tactics or frivolous motions that merely allege lack of jurisdiction in bad faith.
    • Genuine jurisdictional issues must be raised promptly and supported by law or jurisprudence.

VIII. SUMMARY

  1. Criminal jurisdiction in the Philippines is substantive and conferred exclusively by the Constitution or by legislation.
  2. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined by (a) the nature of the offense or the imposable penalty, (b) the classification/position of the accused (for graft or corruption cases), or (c) specific special laws.
  3. Territorial jurisdiction (venue) is generally where the crime was committed, subject to exceptions (continuing offenses, special rules).
  4. Personal jurisdiction over the accused is obtained by arrest or voluntary submission.
  5. Once jurisdiction is vested, it continues until final resolution, unless displaced by express legal provisions.
  6. Proceedings without jurisdiction are void and do not give rise to valid convictions or acquittals.

By carefully understanding and applying these rules, legal practitioners can ensure the orderly administration of justice and the proper observance of an accused’s constitutional rights.

Disclaimer Reiterated: The above exposition is a general overview of Philippine legal provisions on criminal jurisdiction. It does not substitute for professional legal advice tailored to specific cases. Always consult a licensed Philippine attorney for any legal concerns or case-specific guidance.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login